RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/David Blunkett
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
David Blunkett | Result: Kept after expansion[edit]
Delete[edit]
- off mission article about a minor UK politician TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 10:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- An on-mission article is possible but this stub doesn't say anything worthwhile & has been that way virtually unchanged for 7½ years. Unless big things happen to it in the next few days, I say get rid of it. Wéáśéĺóíď
Methinks it is a Weasel 00:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC) - I don't think that being home Secretary classifies as being a "minor politician", but the current page offers nothing of substance. I learned nothing from reading it. Not saying we can't have a page on this guy, but it needs to offer at least *something* of substance. Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep[edit]
- Bad nomination from ignorance. Ridiculously authoritarian politician in the Blair government - David Gerard (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- It might be a bad nomination, at least in your world David, but it is not born of ignorance. I could roll off the names of 100 British ministers who were every bit as authoritarian as Blunkett. Do we want an article on all of them? The fact this article sits as a very unimpressive stub says much. Blunkett does represent the gone wrong period of the Blair government which certainly did become very authoritarian and he could be mentioned in that respect in the New Labour article. He is neither notable enough nor notably different enough to warrant his own RW article. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- Is that really a good argument, though? I can list a bunch of authoritarian Republicans, but that doesn't make Dick Cheney non-notable, does it? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:48, 8 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- It might be a bad nomination, at least in your world David, but it is not born of ignorance. I could roll off the names of 100 British ministers who were every bit as authoritarian as Blunkett. Do we want an article on all of them? The fact this article sits as a very unimpressive stub says much. Blunkett does represent the gone wrong period of the Blair government which certainly did become very authoritarian and he could be mentioned in that respect in the New Labour article. He is neither notable enough nor notably different enough to warrant his own RW article. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- Weak keep (we do that here, right?). It needs expansion, particularly is authoritarian words and deeds need detailing. If not, redirect to New Labour. Bicyclewheel
10:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC) - I hate to agree with David Gerard on anything, but I actually agree with his arguments here. Blacke (talk) 09:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- a crap load of work has been done by me on the article since the AFD. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Goat[edit]
- He's held some very important positions and he's big on authoritarianism, from what the article tells me, so it at least seems missional. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 11:12, 8 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- This is one of those situations that might be hard to evaluate if you don't live there. A British politician who apparently is dismissive of civil libertarians and their concerns. I don't think that every US politician who has ever said something critical about the ACLU warrants an article without more. I'd like to see the article make a better case as to why his statement is a bigger deal than that. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 14:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- OK, this might sound a bit odd as I nominated the article for deletion. There are some good points made in this AFD on all sides and it seems unlikely we will reach consensus. So, let me have a go at the article over the next few days. I still believe that Blunkett's authoritarianism would be better dealt with in the New Labour article as it was a symptom of that administration. But let me see if I can make this article stand up.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- I had a go at the article. It is dry and dreary but so is the subject matter. And I am just not invested in writing about this man. But I suspect the AFD can now go?--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 11:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)